Implementation and adherence to a speciality-specific checklist for neurosurgery and its influence on patient safety

Proposal for a complementary surgical checklist for brain tumor surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Once the WHO generic surgical checklist has been standardized and following the itinerary proposed, it is up to the different specialties to continue advancing in the improvement and adjustment of the checklists to the procedures and interventions in their field.

METHODS

Through a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) in which professionals from the surgical area of ​​the Torrecárdenas University Hospital, Jaén Hospital Complex and Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital participated, aspects that could condition patient safety in the surgery of the brain tumors and that are not included in the WHO generic surgical checklist were recognized. The three authors gave a score between 1 and 5 to each of the proposed items incrementally depending on the degree of suitability. Based on the score obtained, they selected those who would be incorporated into the specific surgical checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 24 candidate items were identified to be included in the specific check list. These obtained scores between 14 and 10 points. After this weighting, it was decided to include the 12 best-rated items in the final surgical checklist, six of them in the initial phase, three in the phase prior to the incision and another three in the final part of the checklist prior to the completion of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Professionals in the surgical area of ​​Neurosurgery can identify aspects not included in the generic checklist whose non-compliance can condition the patient's safety at least to the same extent as those included in the generic list. It is possible to propose a specific complementary checklist for brain tumor surgery, in charge of collecting aspects related to the safety and success of these procedures.

Proposal for a complementary safety checklist for spine surgery

INTRODUCTION

Once the World Health Oraganization (WHO) generic surgical checklist has been standardized and following the itinerary proposed, it is up to the different specialties to continue advancing in the improvement and adjustment of the checklists to their specific procedures.

METHODS

Through a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) in which professionals from the surgical area of ​​the Torrecárdenas University Hospital, Jaén Hospital Complex and Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital participated, aspects that threaten patient safety in spine surgery and that are not included in the WHO generic surgical checklist were proposed. The authors scored each of the proposed items incrementally based on the degree of suitability. Based on the score obtained, they selected those who would be incorporated into the specific safety checklist.

RESULTS

A total of twenty-one candidate items were proposed to be part of the specific check list. These obtained scores between 15 and 11 points. After scoring them, it was decided to include the thirteen best rated in the definitive surgical checklist, seven of them in the initial phase, two in the phase prior to the incision and another four in the final part of the checklist prior to the completion of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Professionals in the surgical area of ​​Neurosurgery can identify aspects not included in the generic checklist whose non-compliance can affect patient safety in spine surgery to at least the same extent as those included in WHO checklist. It is possible to propose a specific complementary checklist for spinal surgery, responsible for collecting aspects related to safety and success in these procedures.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Spine Pathways and the Role of Perioperative Checklists

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) proposes a multimodal, evidence-based approach to perioperative care. ERAS pathways have been shown to help reduce complications, hospital length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rates, pain scores, and ultimately surgical costs, while improving patient satisfaction scores and outcomes in multiple surgical subspecialties [1-6]. Numerous specialties have implemented ERAS programs across the globe, providing a foundation for spine surgeons to begin the process themselves. Over the last few years, a significant number of papers have been addressing ERAS pathways for spinal surgery [7-19]. The majority have addressed the lumbar spine [9, 20-26]. The number of cervical ERAS pathways has been limited [27-29]. Many spine programs have begun the implementation of ERAS pathways, incorporating principles and interventions to various spine surgical procedures. Although differences in implementation across programs exist, there are a few common elements that promote a successful enhanced recovery approach [11, 16, 23, 25, 30-33]. All spinal ERAS pathways have three major elements, which are preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative phases. Within these phases some common elements include preoperative and intraoperative surgical checklists. Intraoperative checklist in addition to the "surgical time out" has been integrated into the workflow of most hospitals doing surgeries and have become a standard of care. The surgical checklist is designed to help reduce surgical errors and prevent wrong site/patient surgeries. Several surgical checklists have been developed throughout the years. Despite these safety protocols wrong site/level and other surgical errors continue to occur. Many cases of wrong level spine surgery (WLSS) still occur even when intraoperative imaging is performed [34, 35]. One survey reported that about 50% of spine surgeons have performed at least one WLSS during their career [36, 37]. Another survey reported that 36% of spine surgeons had performed at least one WLSS that was not recognized intraoperatively [38]. On a similar account, about 30% of spine surgery fellows have experienced wrong-site surgery [39]. From raw incidence rates, WLSS may seem rare, but these surveys show that the experience of WLSS is rather common among spine surgeons. WLSS is not yet a "never event." This may be due to poor quality of the intraoperative images, hindering subsequent level identification [34, 35, 38, 40]. Errors in interpretation of the imaging may also occur, including inconsistency in numbering vertebrae, inconsistency in landmark usage for level counting, and problems with numbering vertebrae due to lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV) and other anatomical variants [34, 38, 41-43]. This chapter will describe a framework for the development and implementation of ERAS pathway for patients undergoing spine surgery. In addition, we will propose preoperative imaging guidelines and a comprehensive spine surgical checklist to incorporate into the perioperative phase to help reduce further surgical errors and WLSS.